labor standards full text

7/25/2019 Labor Standards Full Text

1/86

I. Interpretation of Labor Laws,Statutes, Etc.

[G.R. No. 139455.Marc !", !##3$

RE%&'LI( )* +E %ILI%%INES represente-b EM%L)/EES ()M%ENS0+I)N()MMISSI)N,petitioner, vs.%ER)M0RI0N), respondent.

E ( I S I ) N

2&IS&M'ING,J.

Subject of this petition for reviewon certiorariis the decision,[1]dated July 26,1999, of the Court of ppeals in C!"# S$ %o&'()!2*9*& +t reversed the decision of the

-ployees Co-pensation Co--ission .CC/,dated 0ctober 2, 199*, in CC Case %o& S!9633!49*, which had a5r-ed the rulin of theSocial Security Syste- .SSS/ denyin hereinrespondent $edro arianos clai- forco-pensation bene7ts under $residential (ecree%o& 626&[2]

8he pertinent facts, as su--aried by the05ce of the Solicitor "eneral .0S"/, are asfollows:

;or an eleven!year period startin January19*, respondent $edro ariano was an

e-ployee of


2/86

establish that the ris= of contractin said ail-entwas increased by the nature of respondentswor=& 8hus, said the 0S", it was error for theCourt of ppeals to declare the ail-entco-pensable& dditionally, the 0S" avers thatprivate respondent failed to sub-it thedocu-ents that the CC reGuired to support hisclai- for disability bene7ts&

#espondent counters that the nature of his

functions at


3/86

8his petition see=s to review the (ecision ofthe Court of ppeals[1]a5r-in in totothedecision of the %ational


4/86

petitioners to private respondent, as there was nointent to dis-iss hi- when he was called to aconference on @ uust 1996A and, that he wasnot prevented fro- returnin to wor= as in fact hewas as=ed repeatedly to return to wor=, but hede7antly refused to do so&

8o avoid delay in the disposition of the case,it appearin fro- the records that the parties hadalready fully ventilated and ehaustively arued

their respective positions before the


5/86

respondentLs daily ti-e records, which are on!7lein its o5ce, to prove the dates respondent was onE0< .absence without leave/A or any letterwherein they reGuired respondent to report forwor= and eplain his unauthoried absences& ?ut,as it is, petitionersL defense of abandon-entcannot be iven credence for lac= of evidentiarysupport&

$etitioners -aintain that durin the initial

hearin before er to reinstateprivate respondent to his for-er position, buthe Ode7antlyO refused the o>er despite the factthat in his co-plaint he was as=in forreinstate-ent& ain, petitioners etended theo>er in their position paper 7led with the ectively neaterespondentLs clai- of illeal dis-issal&

Ee hold otherwise& s we see it, respondentLsrefusal to be reinstated is -ore of a sy-pto- ofstrained relations between the parties, ratherthan an indiciumof abandon-ent of wor= asobstinately insisted by petitioners& Ehilerespondent desires to have his job bac=, it -usthave later dawned on hi- that the 7lin of theco-plaint for illeal dis-issal and the bitterincidents that followed have sundered theerstwhile har-onious relationship between theparties& #espondent -ust have surely realiedthat even if reinstated, he will 7nd itunco-fortable to continue wor=in under thehostile eyes of the e-ployer who had been forcedto reinstate hi-& De had every reason to fear thatif he accepted petitionersL o>er, their watchfuleyes would thereafter be focused on hi-, todetect every s-all shortco-in of his as a roundfor vindictive disciplinary action&[1B]+n suchinstance, reinstate-ent would no loner bebene7cial to hi-&

%either does the fact that petitioners-ade o4ers to reinstaterespondent leallydisproves illeal dis-issal& Ee aree with theobservation of the Court of ppeals that the o>er-ay very well be Oa tacit ad-ission of petitioners

that they erred in dis-issin hi- verbally andwithout observance of both substantive andprocedural due process&O Curiously, petitionersLo>er of reinstate-ent was -ade only after -orethan one .1/ -onth fro- the date of the 7lin ofthe illeal dis-issal case& 8heir belated esture ofoodwill is hihly suspect& +f petitioners wereindeed sincere in invitin respondent bac= towor= in the co-pany, they could have -ade theo>er -uch sooner& +n any case, their intentions in-a=in the o>er are i--aterial, for the o>er tore!e-ploy respondent could not have the e>ectof validatin an otherwise arbitrary dis-issal&

+n su-, we are convinced that respondent didnot Guit his job as insisted by petitioners, but wasuncere-oniously dis-issed therefro- withoutobservin the twin reGuire-ents of due process,i&e&, due notice and hearin& Ehile we reconiethe riht of the e-ployer to ter-inate theservices of an e-ployee for a just or authoriedcause, nevertheless, the dis-issal of e-ployees-ust be -ade within the para-eters of law andpursuant to the tenets of eGuity and fairplay& 8ruly, the e-ployerLs power to discipline its

wor=ers -ay not be eercised in an arbitrary-anner as to erode the constitutional uaranteeof security of tenure&

Ehatever doubts, uncertainties ora-biuities re-ain in this case should ulti-atelybe resolved in favor of the wor=er in line with thesocial justice policy of our labor laws and theConstitution& 8he consistent rule is that thee-ployer -ust a5r-atively show rationally

adeGuate evidence that the dis-issal was for ajusti7able cause, failin in which -a=es theter-ination illeal&

'pon the foreoin considerations, thenor-al conseGuences of respondentLs illealdis-issal are reinstate-ent without loss ofseniority rihts, and pay-ent of bac= waesco-puted fro- the ti-e his co-pensation waswithheld fro- hi-, that is, @ uust 1996, up tothe date of his actual reinstate-ent& 8hesere-edies ive life to the wor=ersL constitutionalriht to security of tenure& Dowever, under the

circu-stances, reinstate-ent would bei-practical and would hardly pro-ote the bestinterest of the parties& s heretofore discussed,the resent-ent and en-ity between D%8I andSinson which cul-inated in and wasco-pounded by the illeal dis-issal suitnecessarily strained the relationship betweenthe- or even provo=ed antipathy andantaonis-& Ehere reinstate-ent is no lonerviable as an option,separation pay eGuivalent toone .1/ -onth salary for every year of serviceshould be awarded as an alternative& 8his hasbeen our consistent rulin in the award ofseparation pay to illeally dis-issed e-ployeesin lieu of reinstate-ent&[11]

ERE*)RE, the petition is (%+( and theassailed decision dated 2 0ctober 2BBB of theCourt of ppeals is ;;+#(&$etitioners Dante

8radin Co&, +nc&, and ariano Chua are directedjointly and severally to pay respondent ?ernardoSinson separation pay in lieu of reinstate-ent inthe a-ount eGuivalent to one .1/ -onth pay forevery year of service, bac=waes co-puted fro-@ uust 2BB2, the ti-e his co-pensation waswithheld fro- hi-, up to the 7nality of thisdecision, plus the accrued 1th -onth pay&

S) )RERE.

II. Epoent

[G.R. No. 151!!".0u;ust 15, !##!$R)L0N) /. +0N,petitioner, vs. LE)


6/86

to pay the latter the a-ount of $16,*49&99 byway of separation pay, bac=waes, and da-aes&

8he followin are the facts&

$etitioner #olando 8an is the president ofSupre-e 8heater Corporation and the eneral-anaer of Crown and -pire 8heaters in ?utuanCity& $rivate respondent


7/86

painters in the decision in Guestion is -isplacedor has no factual or leal basis in the record&

+F& Eith all due respect, respondent Court ofppeals openin state-ent in its decision as toe-ploy-ent, -onthly salary of $1,43@&BB andwor= schedule fro- onday to Saturday, fro-*:BB ocloc= in the -ornin up to @:BB ocloc= inthe afternoon as facts is not supported by the

evidence on record&

F& Eith all due respect, the case of /ambo, et al.,v. +/'C, et al&, 13 SC# 42B ["& %o& 111B420ctober 26, 1999] relied upon by respondentCourt of ppeals is not applicable to the peculiarcircu-stances of this case&[6]

8he issues raised boil down to whether or notan e-ployer!e-ployee relationship eistedbetween petitioner and private respondent, andwhether petitioner is uilty of illeally dis-issinprivate respondent& Ee 7nd the answers to these

issues to be in the a5r-ative&

I.

+n deter-inin whether there is an e-ployer!e-ployee relationship, we have applied a four!fold test, to wit: .1/ whether the alleed e-ployerhas the power of selection and enae-ent ofe-ployeesA .2/ whether he has control of thee-ployee with respect to the -eans and-ethods by which wor= is to be acco-plishedA ./whether he has the power to dis-issA and .4/whether the e-ployee was paid waes&[3]8heseele-ents of the e-ployer!e-ployee relationship

are present in this case&

First.8he eistence in this case of the 7rstele-ent is undisputed& +t was petitioner whoenaed the services of


8/86

or to be done, or for services rendered or to berendered&[14]8hat


9/86

e-ployer constitutes violation of reasonablereulations intended to pro-ote a healthyenviron-ent under rt& 2*2.1/ of the ar* 'oche International v. +/'C,[4]he is paid a 7ed a-ount for wor= done,reardless of the ti-e he spent in acco-plishinsuch wor=&

ERE*)RE, based on the foreoin, thepetition is (%+( for lac= of showin that theCourt of ppeals co--itted any reversibleerror& 8he decision of the Court of ppeals,reversin the decision of the %ational ective June B, 1994&De ended up sic=, jobless and penniless&

0n Septe-ber 1, 1994, Sahot 7led with the%


10/86

a -onthly salary that reached $4,16B&BB at theti-e of his separation&

$etitioners further clai-ed that so-eti-eprior to June 1, 1994, Sahot went on leave andwas not able to report for wor= for al-ost sevendays& 0n June 1, 1994, Sahot as=ed per-ission toetend his leave of absence until June B, 1994& +tappeared that fro- the epiration of his leave,private respondent never reported bac= to wor=

nor did he 7le an etension of his leave& +nstead,he 7led the co-plaint for illeal dis-issal aainstthe truc=in co-pany and its owners&

$etitioners add that due to Sahots refusal towor= after the epiration of his authoried leaveof absence, he should be dee-ed to havevoluntarily resined fro- his wor=& 8heycontended that Sahot had all the ti-e to etendhis leave or at least infor- petitioners of hishealth condition&


11/86

$rivate respondent, for his part, denies thathe was ever an industrial partner of petitioners&

8here was no written aree-ent, no proof that hereceived a share in petitioners pro7ts, nor wasthere anythin to show he had any participationwith respect to the runnin of the business&[1*]

8he ele-ents to deter-ine the eistence ofan e-ploy-ent relationship are: .a/ the selectionand enae-ent of the e-ployeeA .b/ the

pay-ent of waesA .c/ the power of dis-issalAand .d/ the e-ployers power to control thee-ployees conduct& 8he -ost i-portant ele-entis the e-ployers control of the e-ployeesconduct, not only as to the result of the wor= tobe done, but also as to the -eans and -ethodsto acco-plish it&[19]

s found by the appellate court, petitionersowned and operated a truc=in business sincethe 19@Bs and by their own alleations, theydeter-ined private respondents waes and restday&[2B]#ecords of the case show that private

respondent actually enaed in wor= as ane-ployee& (urin the entire course of hise-ploy-ent he did not have the freedo- todeter-ine where he would o, what he would do,and how he would do it& De -erely followedinstructions of petitioners and was content to doso, as lon as he was paid his waes& +ndeed, saidthe C, private respondent had wor=ed as a truc=helper and driver of petitioners not for his ownpleasure but under the latters control&

rticle 1363[21]of the Civil Code states that ina contract of partnership two or -ore personsbind the-selves to contribute -oney, property or

industry to a co--on fund, with the intention ofdividin the pro7ts a-on the-selves&[22]%ot oneof these circu-stances is present in this case& %owritten aree-ent eists to prove the partnershipbetween the parties& $rivate respondent did notcontribute -oney, property or industry for thepurpose of enain in the supposed business&

8here is no proof that he was receivin a share inthe pro7ts as a -atter of course, durin theperiod when the truc=in business was underoperation& %either is there any proof that he hadactively participated in the -anae-ent,ad-inistration and adoption of policies of the

business& 8hus, the %


12/86

rticle 2*4 of the


13/86

0n arch 14, 2BBB, the Court pro-ulatedits decision in the above!entitled case, rulin infavor of the petitioners& 8he dispositive portionreads, as follows:

ERE*)RE, pre-ises considered, the assailed(ecision, dated June 1, 199, of the %ational


14/86

0n July 1, 19*9, respondent 8rans!lobal deniedpetitioner


15/86

not entitled to bac= waes and reinstate-ent,that bein not allowed under the $0 rules andthe irant Eor=ers ctA and, ./ petitioners arenot entitled to clai- the total a-ount credited totheir account under the C+$&[14]

eanwhile, +ntervenor ;ilipino ssociation ofariners -ploy-ent .;/ avers that ourdecision, if not reconsidered, will have neativeconseGuences in the e-ploy-ent of ;ilipino

Seafarers overseas which, in turn, -iht lead tothe de-ise of the -annin industry in the$hilippines& s intervenor ; puts it:

3&1 ;orein principals will start loo=in foralternative sources for seafarers to -an theirships& S reported by the ?+C0M+S; study, thereis an epectancy that there will be an increasinde-and for .and supply of/ Chinese seafarers,with so-e co--entators suestin that this-ay be a lon!ter- alternative to the$hilippines& oreover, the political chanes withinthe for-er astern ?loc have -ade new sourcesof supply available to the international-ar=et& +ntervenors recent survey a-on its-e-bers shows that @B $hilippine -anninco-panies had already lost so-e 6,BB slots toother sian, ast urope and Chinese co-petitionfor the last two yearsA

3&2 8he $hilippine stands to lose an annualforein inco-e esti-ated at '&S& (0


16/86

contrary to law, -orals, ood custo-s, publicorder or public policy&'nder the Civil code,therefore, and as a eneral proposition, 7ed!ter- e-ploy-ent contracts are not li-ited, asthey are under the present


17/86

ain, in $ablo Coyoca v. +/'C,[1*]the Courtalso held that a seafarer is not a reulare-ployee and is not entitled to separationpay&Dis e-ploy-ent is overned by the $0Standard -ploy-ent Contract for ;ilipinoSea-en&

III& +n this connection, it is i-portant to notethat neither does the $0 standard e-ploy-ent

contract for ;ilipino sea-en provide for suchbene7ts&

0s a *iipino seaan, petitioner is ;o:erne-b te Rues an- Re;uations Go:ernin;):erseas Epoent an- te sai- Rues -onot pro:i-e for separation or terinationpa. Ehat is e-bodied in petitioners contract isthe pay-ent of co-pensation arisin fro-per-anent partial disability durin the period ofe-ploy-ent& Ee 7nd that private respondentco-plied with the ter-s of contract when it paidpetitioner $42,1@&BB which, in our opinion, is a

reasonable a-ount, as co-pensation for hisillness&


18/86

shall be for a li-ited period onlyA not eceedintwelve .12/-onths&[2]

;ro- all the foreoin, we hereby state thatpetitioners are not considered reular orper-anent e-ployees under rticle 2*B of the


19/86

-e-bers and on rounds of abandon-ent andunavailability for contractual sea service,respectively, they were disGuali7ed fro-receivin any bene7ts under the C+$& [2@]

+n our arch 14, 2BBB (ecision, we, however,found that petitioners illares and ectivity of the aree-ent,petitioner, by letter of ay 16, 1994, [2]reGuestedthe SSS for the upward adjust-ent of theircontract rate in view of Eae 0rder %o& %C#!Bwhich was issued by the #eional 8ripartiteEaes and $roductivity ?oard!%C# pursuant to#epublic ct 6323 otherwise =nown as the Eae#ationaliation ct, the pertinent provision ofwhich wae order reads:

Section 9& In te case of contractsforconstruction projects and for securit, janitorialand si-ilar services, te prescribe- aount

set fort erein for co:ere- worCers sabe borne b te principas or te cientsofthe constructionMservice contractors an- tecontract sa be -eee- aen-e-accor-in;. In te e:ent, owe:er, tat teprincipa or cient faie- to pa teprescribe- increase, teconstruction8ser:ice contractors sa be

oint an- se:era iabe wit teprincipa or cient& .-phasis and underscorinsupplied&/
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/110524.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/110524.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/122791.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/122791.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/122791.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/110524.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/jul2002/110524.htm#_edn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/122791.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/feb2003/122791.htm#_ftn2


20/86

s his ay 16, 1994 letter to the SSSre-ained unheeded, petitioner sent anotherletter,[]dated June 3, 1994, reiteratin thereGuest, which was followed by still anotherletter,[4]dated June *, 1994&

0n June 24, 1994, petitioner pulled out hisaencys services fro- the pre-ises of the SSSand another security aency, Jauar, too= over& [@]

0n June 29, 1994, petitioner 7led aco-plaint[6]with the (0


21/86

fro- e-ployer!e-ployee relations: $rovided, 8hatsuch co-plaint does not include a clai- forreinstate-entA $rovided, further, 8hat theareate -oney clai- of each e-ployee orhousehelper does not eceed ;ive 8housandpesos .$@,BBB&BB/& 8he reional director orhearin o5cer shall decide or resolve theco-plaint within thirty .B/ calendar days fro-the date of the 7lin of the sa-e& ny su- thusrecovered on behalf of any e-ployee orhousehelper pursuant to this rticle shall be heldin a special deposit account by, and shall be paidon order of, the Secretary of ort to locate hi- withina period of three ./ years, shall be held as aspecial fund of the (epart-ent of


22/86

se:era iabe wit is contractor orsubcontractor to suc epoees to teeBtent of te worC perfore- un-er tecontract, in te sae anner an- eBtenttat e is iabe to epoees -irectepoe- b i.

.-phasis and underscorin supplied/

#8& 1B3 +%(+#C8 $


23/86

0=(&N0,J.

ppellants lona ?uli!e and Jose7na lolinoassail the decision of the #eional 8rial Court of?auio City, ?ranch 1@, 7ndin the- uiltybeyond reasonable doubt of illeal recruit-entco--itted in lare scale and eiht counts ofestafa&

0n arch 16, 199, the followin infor-ationwas 7led aainst Jose lolino and appellants,lona ?uli!e and Jose7na lolino:

The undersigned accuses A/3+A =/I7:,3S:FI+A %3SI:( A/3/I+3 and 3S: A/3/I+3for 9I3/ATI3+ 3F A'TIC/: 0 %b(, ?':SI


24/86

and $@,BBB on uust 24, 1991&


25/86

bio!data, passport, %?+ clearance and place-entfee of $4B,BBB of which $1@,BBB -ust be paid inadvance upon instructions of Jose7na& Jose7naalleedly instructed ?uli!e to acco-panyco-plainants to Sts& $eter and $aul edical Clinicin r-ita, anila for -edical chec=!up& [*]?uli!ewas li=ewise instructed by Jose7na to acco-panyso-e of the co-plainants in securin their %?+clearance and to receive whatever docu-entsco-plainants will be sub-ittin includinthe $1@,BBB advance pay-ent, all of whichshould be sub-itted to Jose7na& ?uli!e said thatshe sub-itted the docu-ents and the pay-entseither to Jose lolino or to Jose7na&[9]Sheclari7ed that she did not have a hand in securinthe passports of co-plainants[4B]and receivedinstructions fro- Jose7na only when sheco--unicated with Jose7na throuh thetelephone or went to anila& She averred that sheand several -e-bers of her fa-ily also tried toapply for overseas wor= with Jose7na and paidthe latter $1BB,BBB&[41]

?uli!e presented rs& %onette


26/86

-elita #acelis testi7ed that she was ane-ployee of #S+ fro- 19*9 to 1992 and was oneof the two persons assined to Jose7na&[@2]sacelis said that ?uli!e freGuently went to the #S+,brinin applicants with her three ti-es a -onth&-on the applicants who- ?uli!e referred to #S+throuh one of the -ar=etin directors, rs& ;e"o, was a certain $rescilla acli7ing,essica :stay, Sidolia Fias7eo, ohn

>angili, Sabado Agapito, oseph3ratil and oel 3ratil the sumof ?"!,&&&.&& each and +ieva/ampoyas the sum of ?"6,&&&.&&as actual damages ithoutsubsidiary imprisonment in case ofinsolvency and to pay the costs.

The accused Alona =uli7e andose2na %osie( Alolino beingdetention prisoners are entitled to

be credited 6H! of their preventiveimprisonment in the service oftheir sentence in accordance ith

Article # of the 'evised ?enalCode.

S3 3'


27/86

Eith reard to the eiht chares of estafa7led aainst appellants, the trial court convictedthe- on the round that all the ele-ents ofestafa were present under each of the eihtchares 7led& 8he trial court held that appellantsthrouh false pretenses and fraudulent actsrepresented to co-plainants that they had thepower, authority and capacity to deploy wor=ersabroad for a fee of $4B,BBB, of which$1@,BBBshould be paid as advance pay-ent& 8he falsepretenses and fraudulent acts were eecutedprior to or si-ultaneous with appellants ta=inthe su- of $1@,BBB as advance pay-ent fro-each of private co-plainants[@@]which werereceived by ?uli!e in ?auio City and turned overby her to Jose7na in anila& Co-plainants reliedon the pretenses and -isrepresentations ofappellants and parted with substantial su-s of-oney as advance pay-ents of their place-entfees& s a result of the false pretenses and-isrepresentations, co-plainants were da-aedand prejudiced to the etent of the su-s theyhad iven as downpay-ent since appellantsfailed to send the- abroad as pro-ised&

+n her appeal before us, appellant ?uli!econtends that the trial court erred:

+& +% ;+


28/86

?uli!es clai- deserves scant consideration& +tis true that ?uli!e did not actively see=co-plainants to recruit thefor oversease-ploy-ent& +t was co-plainants who souht herout& %evertheless, when co-plainantsapproached her, ?uli!e ave co-plainants thei-pression that she had the ability to sendwor=ers abroad by sayin that althouh she didnot have a license of her own to recruit, her boss,who was a licensed recruiter, was already in theprocess of securin her a license&[@9]She not onlyinfor-ed co-plainants of the reGuire-ents inapplyin for overseas e-ploy-ent and evenacco-panied the- to anila to procure thenecessary docu-ents such as passport, -edicaland %?+ clearances&[6B]+t was she who brouhtthe- to the house of the spouses lolino and itwas also she who received fro- co-plainantsadvanced pay-ents for place-ent fee which shehanded over to the spouses& Der clai- that sheand her relatives were also victi-s of illealrecruit-ent by the spouses lolino is notsubstantiated&

Ee also 7nd no reason to disturb the 7ndinsof the trial court that Jose7na lolino conspiredand confederated with ?uli!e in recruitinapplicants for overseas e-ploy-ent fro- ?auioCity althouh neither she nor ?uli!e had license orauthority to do so& Der clai- that she did nothave a direct participation in the recruit-ent in?auio City and that she -erely assisted theco-plainants by referrin the- to #S+ to facilitatetheir papers does not -erit credence& 8here is noshowin that co-plainants ever set foot in the#S+ o5ce& 8hey were always brouht by ?uli!e to

the house of the spouses lolino in er as evidence thedocu-ent alleedly supportin her clai- thatpart of her duties as ar=etin (irector includedrecruit-ent of overseas contract wor=ers& 8hedocu-ent not havin been for-ally o>ered incourt cannot be considered, pursuant toSection 4, #ule 12 of the #ules of Court&

oreover, the


29/86

ac=nowleded branch or etension o5ce, withoutsecurin prior authority fro- the $0&[64]$ursuant to the $0 rules and reulations,

Jose7na could recruit applicants for oversease-ploy-ent and process their applications onlyat the #S+ o5ce in andaluyon, etro anilasince there was no showin that #S+ had anac=nowleded branch or etension o5ce in?auio City or thatthe prior approval of the $0for provincial recruit-ent or recruit-ent activitiesoutside the #S+ o5ce was obtained&

;inally, the trial court did not err in 7ndinappellants uilty of eiht .*/ counts of estafa& +t issettled that a person convicted of illealrecruit-ent under the ended

party or third person&[66]

ppellants deceived co-plainants intobelievin that they had the authority andcapability to send the- to 8aiwan fore-ploy-ent& ?y reason or on the strenth ofsuch assurance, co-plainants parted with their-oney in pay-ent of the place-ent fees& Sincethe representations of appellants proved to befalse, pararaph 2.a/, rticle 1@ of the #evised$enal Code is applicable& ?uli!es clai- that shedid not bene7t fro- the -oney collected fro-co-plainants since she ave the pay-ents to

Jose7na is of no -o-ent& +t was clearlyestablished that she acted in connivance with

Jose7na in defraudin co-plainants& s reardsJose7na, the fact that she returned the pay-entof so-e of the co-plainants will not eculpateher fro- cri-inal liability& Cri-inal liability forestafa is not a>ected by co-pro-ise or novation,for it is a public o>ense which -ust beprosecuted and punished by the overn-ent onits own -otion even thouh co-plete reparationhas been -ade of the da-ae su>ered by theo>ended party&[63]

8he actual da-aes in the su- of $1@,BBB

awarded to each of co-plainants ;ias!eo andanili, however, should be deleted inas-uch assaid a-ounts have already been rei-bursed by

Jose7na durin her detention&

ERE*)RE, the decision of the #eional8rial Court of ?auio City, ?ranch 1@, is ;;+#(with the 0(+;+C8+0%that the actual da-aesawarded to ;ias!eo and anili in Cri-inal Cases%os& 1112@!# and 11126!# are deleted& Costs deo2cio&

S) )RERE.

[G.R. N). 14"136.@anuar 1>, !##3$%E)%LE )* +E %ILI%%INES, appellee, vs.)MING0 ()RR0LES *)R+&N0, appellant.

E ( I S I ) N


30/86

ecept for the a-ount of $1,2@B&BB paid tonelyn apayo, ;ortuna was unable to -a=eood her pro-ise&

(o-ina ;ortuna, in her testi-ony, ad-ittedhavin attended the se-inar on June 199* whereshe then -et nnie %uGue, #ebecca (e


31/86

& + believe[d] and + thouht that + [could]really wor=, sir&

Q& side fro- the processin fee of$@,4BB&BB, were there any other7nancial -atter that was iven byyou

& %one, sirA when we went to anila, weshouldered our epenses&

Q& Ehen did you o to anila

& July 1, 199*, sir&

Q& Ehat was the purpose why you wentthere

& ;or -edical purpose, accordin to her,sir&

Q& nd who was with you

& 8he accused, sir&

Q& side fro- you and the accused, were

there any other persons

& Ee were acco-panied by -y co!co-plainants, sir, aside fro- theaccused&[@]

8esti-ony of nelyn apayo !

C0'#8:

Q& (o you =now the accused

& Hes, Hour Donor&

Q& $oint to her now&

& Shes the one, sir& .Eitness pointin toa person who- when as=ed of herna-e answered (o-ina ;ortuna yCorrales&/

Q& Dow did you co-e to =now her

& + ca-e to =now her durin the se-inarof 8upperware, Hour Donor&

;+SC< C#+":

Q& Ehy did you have to attend thisse-inar in the sellin of

8upperware

& s an additional business, sir&

Q& Could you please tell us, where thisse-inar [was] bein held at thatti-e

& t ?uros St&, Cabanatuan City, sir&

Q& nd when did you -eet the accusedfor the 7rst ti-e

& t the se-inar in 8upperware, sir&

Q& Could you please tell us what

transpired durin the 7rst -eetinwith the accused

& She introduced herself to us, sir&

Q& fterwards, what happened net

& She conversed with us and as=ed if wewant[ed] to wor= outside the$hilippines, sir&

Q& nd what was your response to theo>er of the accused

& + said + [was] willin because + alreadyhave a passport, sir&

Q& side fro- that particular Guestion,what other -atters that you and theaccused tal=ed [about]

& She as=ed -e if + [had] $@,4BB&BB forthe processin of necessary papers,sir&

Q& nd what was your response to thisGuestion

& + said + will raise [the] -oney, sir&

Q& [Eere] you able to raise [the] -oney

& Hes, sir&

Q& Ehen was the appointed ti-e thatyou [would] have to hand or ive the-oney to the accused

& July 6, 199*, sir&

Q& nd were you able to actually ive the-oney, the $@,4BB&BB

& Hes, sir&

Q& Eas there a receipt of this particularpay-ent

& %one, sir&

Q& Could you please tell us why therewas no receipt for this particularpay-ent

& ?ecause + trusted her, sir&

Q& nd after the pay-ent of $@,4BB&BBwhat happened net

& She brouht us to anila for -edicalpurposes, sir&

Q& nd what happened thereafter

& + was not able to et the result of the-edical ea-ination, sir&

Q& ?y the way, what country was-entioned to you by the accusedwhere you were oin to wor=

& 8aiwan, sir&

Q& nd were you able to o to 8aiwan

& %o, sir&

Q& Could you please tell us why therewas a failure in oin to 8aiwan

& fter the -edical ea-ination, shenever showed herself, sir&[6]

8esti-ony of %enita ndasan !

Q& (o you =now a certain (o-ina

;ortuna y Corrales

& Hes, sir&

Q& +n what capacity were you able to=now this (o-ina ;ortuna

& (urin the se-inar of 8upperware, sir&

Q& nd what is this se-inar all about

& bout sellin 8upperware products, sir&
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn6


32/86

Q& nd where was this se-inar of8upperware held

& t ?uros venue, Cabanatuan City,sir&

Q& (o you =now who [was] the oneconductin this se-inar

& %o, sir&

Q& Ehy did you attend this particularse-inar of 8upperware products

& ?ecause + was invited, sir&

Q& Dow -any persons attended thatse-inar

& + cannot recall how -any personsthere were, sir&

Q& Ehen was this se-inar held

& +n the -onth of June, 199*, sir&

Q& June of what year& 199*, sir&

Q& Hou -entioned awhile ao that it wasdurin the se-inar of 8upperwareproducts that you were able to -eet(o-ina ;ortuna, will you please tellus what transpired durin thatparticular -eetin

& Ee [had] conversation and then sheas=ed us if we wanted to o abroad,sir&

Q& Eho was the one [who] as=ed youthat

& 8he accused (o-ina ;ortuna, sir&

Q& nd what was your particularresponse

& + said to her yes, sir, because +want[ed] to have a job&

Q& Eere you the only one [who] waspresent at the se-inar of

8upperware that was o>ered thisjob

& lso -y co!co-plainants, sir&

Q& Ehat happened afterwards, after youtold her that you were interested inwor=in abroad

& Ee set the date in order to 7 ourpapers, sir&

Q& ?y the way, were those the only-atters told to you by the accusedat that point in ti-e

& She also told us to prepare -oney

needed for that, sir&

Q& nd how -uch would that -oney beto be prepared by you

& $@,4BB&BB, sir&

Q& nd did she tell you what this$@,4BB&BB is all about

& ;or processin of papers needed, sir&

Q& nd when was the ti-e that you hadto actually pay or tender this$@,4BB&BB

& +n July, 199*, sir&

Q& Eere you able to co-ply with thisparticular reGuire-ent

& Hes, sir&

Q& nd when did you actually co-plywith this reGuire-ent

& 0n July 6, 199*, sir&

Q& 8o who- did you personally tenderthis $@,4BB&BB

& +n the house of rs& "anot, sir&

Q& nd where is the house of this rs&"anot

& t acatbon, Cabanatuan City, sir&

Q& ?y the way, who is this rs& "anot& She is the one headin us, sir,

Q& (o you have =nowlede whether thisrs& "anot [was] also interested inwor=in abroad

& Hes, sir&

Q& Dow -any were you who werepresent when you actually tenderedthe $@,4BB&BB

& Ee were si .6/, sir&

Q& (o you =now the na-es of the others

& Hes, sir&

Q& Eill you please tell us the na-es ofthose other persons who werepresent when you actually tenderthe $@,4BB&BB to the accused

& #ebecca de


33/86

8he narration -ade by the co-plaininwitnesses does appear to be straihtforward,credible and convincin, and there scarcely is anyreason for inorin the trial court in its evaluationof their credibility& +ndeed, the trial court hasadditionally observed:

& 8here is no showin that any of theco-plainants had ill!-otives aainst accused

(o-ina ;ortuna other than to brin her to thebar of justice&;urther-ore, appellant was astraner to private co-plainants before therecruit-ent& +t is contrary to hu-an nature andeperience for persons to conspire and accuse astraner of such a serious cri-e li=e this thatwould ta=e the latters liberty and send hi- or herto prison& ainst the prosecutions overwhel-inevidence, accused could only o>er a bare denialand an obviously concocted story&

(octrinally, the assess-ent -ade ontesti-onial evidence by the trial jude is

accorded the hihest respect for it is he who hasthe distinct opportunity to directly perceive thede-eanor of witnesses and personally ascertaintheir reliability& 8he rule has been said that aperson chared with illeal recruit-ent -ay beconvicted on the strenth of the testi-ony of theco-plainants, if found to be credible andconvincin, and that the absence of receipts toevidence pay-ent to the recruiter would notwarrant an acGuittal, a receipt not bein fatal tothe prosecutionLs cause&[*]

8he pertinent provisions of #epublic ct %o&*B42 state:

SC& 6& (e7nition& ;or purposes of this act, illealrecruit-ent shall -ean any act of canvassin,enlistin, contractin, transportin, utiliin,hirin, or procurin wor=ers and includesreferrin, contract of services, pro-isin oradvertisin for e-ploy-ent abroad, whether forpro7t or not, when underta=en by a non!license ornon!holder of authority conte-plated underrticle 1.f/ of $residential (ecree %o& 442, asa-ended, otherwise =nown as the ersor pro-ises for a fee e-ploy-ent abroad to twoor -ore persons shall be dee-ed so enaed&

&

+lleal recruit-ent is dee-ed co--itted by asyndicate if carried out by a roup of three ./ or-ore persons conspirin or confederatin withone another& +t is dee-ed co--itted in larescale if co--itted aainst three ./ or -orepersons individually or as a roup&

Sec& 3& $enalties&

.a/ ny person found uilty of illeal recruit-entshall su>er the penalty of i-prison-ent of notless than si .6/ years and one .1/ day but not-ore than twelve .12/ years and a 7ne of not lessthan 8wo hundred thousand pesos .$2BB,BBB&BB/nor -ore than ;ive hundred thousand pesos.$@BB,BBB&BB/&

.b/ 8he penalty of life i-prison-ent and a 7ne ofnot less than ;ive hundred thousand pesos.$@BB,BBB&BB/ nor -ore than 0ne -illion pesos.$1,BBB,BBB&BB/ shall be i-posed if illealrecruit-ent constitutes econo-ic sabotae asde7ned herein&

$rovided, however, 8hat the -ai-u- penaltyshall be i-posed if the person illeally recruited

is less than eihteen .1*/ years of ae orco--itted by a non!licensee or non!holder ofauthority&

8his Court 7nds the infor-ation which haschared appellant with the o>ense of +lleal#ecruit-ent in ense of +lleal #ecruit-ent in erin privateco-plainants e-ploy-ent abroad for a feeA

and tir-, she has co--itted the Guestionedilleal recruit-ent activities aainst three or-ore persons& +lleal recruit-ent in lare scale.when co--itted aainst three or -ore persons/,li=e illeal recruit-ent co--itted by a syndicate.when carried out by a roup of three or -orepersons/, would be dee-ed constitutive ofecono-ic sabotae[1B]carryin a penalty, undersection 3, pararaph .b/, of #epublic ct *B42, oflife i-prison-ent and a 7ne of not less than 7vehundred thousand .$@BB,BBB&BB/ pesos nor -orethan one -illion .$1,BBB,BBB&BB/ pesos& 8hesentence i-posed by the trial court thus accords

with the penalty prescribed by law& word in passin& %o two cases are eactly

ali=eA al-ost invariably, surroundincircu-stances vary fro- case to case& +t is thisreality that -ust have co-pelled the adoption bythe #evised $enal Code of the sche-e ofraduated penalties providin, correspondinly,for the circu-stances that a>ect cri-inalliability& 8he syste- allows the jude to have aood latitude in the sentencin process& +ndeed,in other jurisdictions, a bifurcated proceedin isprescribed in order to help -a=e certain that thepenalty is co--ensurate to the wron

done& 'nder this procedure, the uilt and theinnocence of the accused is 7rst deter-ined andthen, after a verdict of plea or uilt, a pre!sentence hearin is conducted where the judeor a jury would hear aru-ent and receiveadditional evidence on such -atters as thenature of the o>ense, -anner of its co--ission,the -ilieu of ti-e and place, as well as theeducation, reliion, physical and -ental state ofthe accused, alon with still other conditions orcircu-stances, that -ay 7nd relevance in either-itiatin or aravatin the punish-ent to be
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/148137.htm#_ftn10


34/86

-eted,[11]all calculated to enhance a fairjud-ent& Statutory provisions for a sinlepenalty, li=e those prescribed in #epublic ct %o&*B42, virtually inore these safeuards that helpobviate the daner of i-posin either too reator too little a punish-ent for the o>ense&

+t is in the above liht and iven the factualcircu-stances of the case at bar, that Conress-iht see it 7t to revisit #epublic ct %o& *B42

towards adoptin the provisions of the #evised$enal Code on penalties, includin its traditionalno-enclatures, that could pave the way for theproper appreciation of the various circu-stanceslon tested that a>ect cri-inalliability& eanwhile, the Court respectfullyreco--ends to the $resident of the $hilippines apossible co--utation of sentence&

ERE*)RE, the appealed decision of the#eional 8rial Court, Cabanatuan City, in Cri-inalCase %o& *@*9 for +lleal #ecruit-ent in


35/86

jurisdiction of this Donorable Court, the above!na-ed accused, conspirin, confederatin and-utually aidin one another, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully and feloniously for a fee,recruit and pro-ise e-ploy-ent as contractwor=er in Canada, to the herein co-plainant#Corts of their other town!-ate& 8he wee=lyfollow!ups -ade by arie to accused!appellantpertainin to her application and that of raceliswere to no avail& ccused!appellant just pro-isedarie that she will return her -oney& #ealiinthat she had been hoodwin=ed, arie decided to7le a co-plaint aainst the accused!appellantand "allardo with the %ational ?ureau of+nvestiation& She no loner veri7ed the authorityof both accused!appellant and "allardo inrecruitin wor=ers overseas because she was told

by "allardo that she is a direct recruiter&[1B]

arilyn ariano, on the other hand, was toldby accused!appellant that she was recruitinnurses fro- ?auio City and was loo=in for one-ore applicant to co-plete the 7rst batch to Kyto Canada& fter ivin her all the infor-ationabout the job opportunity in Canada, accused!appellant encouraed her to -eet "allardo& %otlon after, "race


36/86

ED#;0#, the Court 7nds accused #e-ediosalapit "'+


37/86

cannot now fein inorance on the conseGuencesof her unlawful acts&

ccused!appellants clai- that the otherprivate co-plainants in Cri-inal Case %o& 1@2B!#, for illeal recruit-ent in lare scale, haveeecuted their individual a5davits of desistancepointin to "allardo as the actual recruiter,deserves scant consideration& 8he several0rders[22]issued by the trial court show that the

dis-issal of the co-plaints of the other privateco-plainants were based on their failure tosubstantiate and prosecute their individualco-plaints despite due notice&V

8he foreoin notwithstandin, the eistenceof the adverted a5davits of desistance does notappear in the records of this case and, thus, -aynot be iven any probative weiht by thisCourt& ny evidence that a party desires tosub-it for the consideration of the court -ust befor-ally o>ered by hi-, otherwise, it is ecludedand rejected&[2]vidence not for-ally o>ered

before the trial court cannot be considered onappeal, for to consider the- at such stae willdeny the other parties their riht to rebut the-&[24]?y optin not to present the- in court, sucha5davits of desistance are enerally hearsay andhave no probative value since the a5ants thereofwere not placed on the witness stand to testifythereon&[2@]8he reason for the rule prohibitin thead-ission of evidence that has not been for-allyo>ered is to a>ord the other party the chance toobject to their ad-issibility&[26]

ll told, the evidence aainst accused!appellant has established beyond a shadow of

doubt that she actively collaborated with co!accused "allardo in illeally recruitin theco-plainants in this case& s correctly pointedout by the trial court, the private co-plainants inthis case would not have been induced to applyfor a job in Canada were it not for accused!appellants infor-ation, recruit-ent, andintroduction of the private co-plainants to herco!accused "allardo&


38/86

inconsistent with any other hypothesis eceptthat of uilty&

8he rules on evidence and precedents sustain theconviction of an accused throuh circu-stantialevidence, as lon as the followin reGuisites arepresent: .1/ there -ust be -ore than onecircu-stanceA .2/ the inference -ust be based onproven factsA and ./ the co-bination of all

circu-stances produces a conviction beyondreasonable doubt of the uilt of the accused&

8he circu-stantial evidence in the case atbar, when scrutinied and ta=en toether, leadsto no other conclusion than that accused!appellant and co!accused "allardo conspired inrecruitin and pro-isin a job overseas to racelibenoja& oreover, arie $uri7cacion benojahad personal =nowlede of the facts andcircu-stances surroundin the chares 7led byher sister, raceli, for si-ple illeal recruit-entand estafa& arie was privy to the recruit-ent of

raceli as she was with her when both accused!appellant and "allardo reGuired raceli toundero physical ea-ination to 7nd out whetherthe latter was 7t for the job abroad&[4]ccused!appellant even ad-itted that she was the onewho introduced arie and raceli to "allardowhen they went to the latters house&[@]arie wasthe one who shouldered the place-ent fee of hersister raceli&[6]

;urther-ore, the private co-plainants in thiscase did not harbor any ill -otive to testify falselyaainst accused!appellant and "allardo&ccused!appellant failed to show any ani-osity or ill!

feelin on the part of the prosecution witnesseswhich could have -otivated the- to falselyaccuse her and "allardo& +t would be aainsthu-an nature and eperience for straners toconspire and accuse another straner of a -ostserious cri-e just to -ollify their hurt feelins&[3]s such, the testi-ony of private co-plainantsthat accused!appellant was the person whotransacted with the-, pro-ised the- jobs andreceived -oney therefor, was correctly ivencredence and rearded as trustworthy by the trialcourt&

+n su-, accused!appellant is only uilty oftwo .2/ counts of illeal recruit-ent& 'nderSection 3 of #epublic ct %o& *B42[*]otherwise=nown as the irant Eor=ers ct of 199@, anyperson found uilty of illeal recruit-ent shallsu>er the penalty of i-prison-ent of not lessthan si .6/ years and one .1/ day but not -orethan twelve .12/ years and a 7ne of not less thantwo hundred thousand pesos .$2BB,BBB&BB/ nor-ore than 7ve hundred thousand pesos.$@BB,BBB&BB/&

8he provisions of the +ndeter-inate Sentenceense underthe #evised $enal Code, states that if the o>enseis punished by any other law, the court shallsentence the accused to an indeter-inatesentence, the -ai-u- ter- of which shall noteceed the -ai-u- 7ed by said law and the-ini-u- shall not be less than the -ini-u-ter- prescribed by the sa-e& Ee hold that thisGuoted portion of the section indubitably refers to

an o>ense under a special law wherein thepenalty i-posed was not ta=en fro- and iswithout reference to the #evised $enal Code, asdiscussed in the precedin illustrations, such thatit -ay be said that the o>ense is punished underthat law&

"uided by the foreoin principle, accused!appellant shall be -ade to su>er a prison ter- of

si .6/ years and one .1/ day, as -ini-u-, totwelve .12/ years, as -ai-u-, and to pay a 7neof $2BB,BBB&BB, for each count of illealrecruit-ent&

8he Court li=ewise a5r-s the conviction ofaccused!appellant for estafa on three ./counts& +t is settled that a person -ay be charedand convicted separately of illeal recruit-entunder the ensesunder the enses punishable by other laws& Conversely,conviction for estafa under par& 2 .a/ of rt& 1@of the #evised $enal Code does not bar a

conviction for illeal recruit-ent under the


39/86

Cri-inal Cases %os& 1@2!#, 1@23!# and1@@31!# should be upheld&

'nder the #evised $enal Code, an accusedfound uilty of estafa shall be sentenced to:

8he penalty ofprision correccionalin its-ai-u- period toprision mayorin its -ini-u-period, if the a-ount of the fraud is over 12,BBBbut does not eceed 22,BBB pesos, and if such

a-ount eceeds the latter su-, the penaltyprovided in this pararaph shall be i-posed in its-ai-u- period, addin one year for eachadditional 1B,BBB pesosA &

+n applyin the provisions of the+ndeter-inate Sentence


40/86

and one .1/ day, as -ini-u-, totwelve .12/ years, as -ai-u-, andto pay a 7ne of $2BB,BBB&BB&

.@/ +n Cri-inal Case %o& 1@@31!#,accused!appellant #e-edios alapitis found "'+er a prison ter- offour .4/ years and two .2/ -onths

ofprision correccional, as -ini-u-,to nine .9/ years and four .4/ -onthsofprision mayor, as -ai-u-, and is0#(#( to inde-nify racelibenoja the a-ount of $@,BBB&BB

S) )RERE.

[G.R. Nos. 145634A35.)ctober 15, !##!$%E)%LE )* +E %ILI%%INES, appellee, vs.


41/86

8he 05ce of the Solicitor "eneral .0S"/relates how appellants, despite their lac= ofauthority or license, represented the-selves aspersons who had the capacity to send the victi-sabroad for e-ploy-ent& Ee Guote its version ofthe facts as follows:

8he prosecution presented three witnesses,na-ely, elchor (esi and $erpetua (esi

.Co-plainants for brevity/ and $riscilla arreo .or$riscilla arelo/&

8he prosecution and appellants stipulated thatappellants are not licensed or authoried torecruit wor=ers for e-ploy-ent abroad, in lieu ofthe testi-ony of Senior


42/86

victi-s& ?elow is the version of the factspresented by the defense:

F+C%8 (+%


43/86

8he court a Guo ravely erred in 7ndin accused!appellants uilty beyond reasonable doubt ofilleal recruit-ent co--itted by a syndicate&

Iense wasco--itted by three ./ or -ore persons had nofactual or leal basis& lleedly, without su5cientevidence, the trial court wronfully presu-edthat all of the- had acted in conspiracy&ccordin to the-, the prosecution failed toprove beyond reasonable doubt that they had

conspired and confederated in illeally recruitinco-plainants& ppellants conclude that, if at all,they could only be held liable for illealrecruit-ent in its si-ple for-& Ee disaree&

+lleal recruit-ent is co--itted when thesetwo ele-ents concur: .1/ the o>enders have novalid license or authority reGuired by law toenable the- to lawfully enae in therecruit-ent and place-ent of wor=ers, and .2/the o>enders underta=e any activity within the-eanin of recruitment and placement[1@]de7nedin rticle 1.b/ or any prohibited practicesenu-erated in rticle 4 of the ense involvin econo-ic sabotae&

Section 6 of # *B42, otherwise =nown as the

irant Eor=ers and 0verseas ;ilipinos ct of199@, provides that illeal recruit-ent shall beconsidered an o>ense involvin econo-icsabotae when it is co--itted by a syndicate orcarried out by a roup of three or -ore personsconspirin and confederatin with one another&

+n several cases, illeal recruit-ent has beendee-ed co--itted by a syndicate if carried outby a roup of three or -ore persons conspirinandMor confederatin with each other in carryinout any unlawful or illeal transaction, enterpriseor sche-e de7ned under rticle *.b/ of the


44/86

Q Ehat is she in relation to yourrecruit-ent by nel ateo andFicenta


45/86

Hes, -aa-&

Q fter receivin said a-ountof $@,BBB&BB what happened

fter that -eetin at $asay City weparted ways but [he] did not issue usany receipt so on pril 1@, [he] aaincalled us up and told -e that heneeds %?+ clearance so weprocessed our %?+ clearance&

Q Hou told us that %"< 80 calledyou, where were you at that ti-e

?auio City&

Q Eere you able to co-e here in anila

Hes -aa-, we -et in Quiapo&

Q Eere you able to -eet %"< 80in Q'+$0

[De] did not arrive in Quiapo&

Q So what did you do

Ee proceeded [to] the %?+ and wecalled up +( and as=ed her why%"< 80 did not arrive andwho- did +( tal= to&

Q Ehat was the reply of +( (


46/86

illeal recruit-ent are entitled to leal interest onthe a-ount to be recovered as inde-nity, fro-the ti-e of the 7lin of the infor-ation until fullypaid&

Secon- Issue

Appellants Liability or staa

ppellants arue that in a prosecution forestafa under rticle 1@, pararaph 2.a/ of the#evised $enal Code, it is indispensable that theele-ent of deceit, consistin of fraudulentrepresentations or false state-ents of theaccused, be -ade prior to or si-ultaneous withthe delivery of the thinA and that such-isrepresentations or false state-ents inducethe co-plainants to part with the object of thecri-e& 8he for-er allee that the prosecution

failed to point out with certainty whether their-isrepresentations or false state-ents were-ade prior to or at least si-ultaneous with thelatters delivery of the -oney&

'nder the cited provision of the #evised$enal Code, estafa is co--itted by any personwho defrauds another by usin a 7ctitious na-eAor by falsely pretendin to possess power,inKuence, Guali7cations, property, credit, aency,businessA by i-ainary transactions or si-ilarfor-s of deceit eecuted prior to or si-ultaneouswith the fraud.[2*]oreover, these false pretenses

should have been the very reason that -otivatedco-plainants to deliver property or pay -oney tothe perpetrators of the fraud& Ehile appellantsinsist that these constitutive ele-ents of thecri-e were not su5ciently shown by theprosecution, the records of the case proveotherwise&

(urin al-ost all of their -eetins,co-plainants paid various a-ounts of -oney toappellants only after hearin the feinedassurances pro>ered by the latter reardin thefor-ers e-ploy-ent prospects in Japan& ven asearly as their 7rst -eetin in the house of ida

de


47/86

within the rane of the penalty net lower thanthat prescribed by the Code&[2]Dence, pursuantto the +ndeter-inate Sentence ense, used in Section 1 of the +ndeter-inateSentence


48/86

1& +n Cri-inal Case %o& 99!1112, appellantsare ordered to pay leal interest on the a-ountof $11*,BBB fro- the ti-e of the 7lin of the+nfor-ation until fully paid&

2& +n Cri-inal Case %o& 99!111, appellantsare sentenced to an indeter-inate penalty oftwelve .12/ years ofprision mayoras -ini-u- totwenty .2B/ years of reclusion temporalas-ai-u-&

S) )RERE.

I>5#.@anuar 13, !##3$)LE %ILI%%INES,IN(.,petitioner, vs.%0IS NG M0?0'0/0NG)'RER) O%0M0)AN*LP, respondent.

E ( I S I ) N

()R)N0,J.

?efore us is a petition for review 7led under#ule 4@ of the 1993 #ules of Civil $rocedure,assailin the January 9, 2BB1 resolution of theCourt of ppeals which denied petitioners -otionfor reconsideration of its Septe-ber 22, 2BBBdecision[1]which in turn upheld the 0rder issuedby the voluntary arbitrator[2]dated 12 0ctober199*, the dispositive portion of which reads:

ED#;0#, pre-ises considered, jud-ent is

hereby rendered in favor of theco-plainant& #espondent is hereby directed toetend the free -eal bene7t as provided for inrticle IF+++, Section of the collective baraininaree-ent to those e-ployees who have actuallyperfor-ed overti-e wor=s even for eactly three./ hours only&

S0 0#(#(&[]

8he core of the present controversy is theinterpretation of the provision for free -eals

under Section of rticle IF+++ of the 1996!2BB1Collective ?arainin ree-ent .C?/ betweenpetitioner (ole $hilippines, +nc& and privaterespondent labor union $0!%;


49/86

presently practiced, after 8D# ./ hours ofactual overti-e wor=&[@]

8he C? for 14 January 199B to 1 January199@ li=ewise provided:

Section & <


50/86

Section 1, #ule 6@ of the 1993 #ules of Civil$rocedure& lso assailed is the appellate courtsresolution[2]of (ece-ber @, 2BBB, which deniedthe -otion for reconsideration&

8he facts, as leaned fro- the 7ndins of the


51/86

#F#S< 0; +8S #S0


52/86

and declare its 7nality& %o reversible error -aythus be laid at the door of the Court of ppealswhen it refused to rule that the %


53/86

services he rendered, no co-pensationor re-uneration was ever paid to hi-&Dence, this case for illeal dis-issal,[non!pay-ent] of salaries, overti-epay and vacation pay& chan roblesvirtual law library

O[$etitioner] 0S, for its part, alleedthat on July 26, 1994, Concorde $aci7c,an -erican co-pany which owns MF

W$rincess DoaL, then a foreinreistered vessel, appointed $hilippine Carrier Shippin encyServices Co& .$C!SSC0/ as ship-anaer particularly to neotiate,transact and deal with any thirdpersons, entities or corporations in theplannin of crewin selection ordeter-ination of Guali7cations of;ilipino Sea-en& 0n the sa-e date,[$etitioner] 0S entered into a Crewree-ent with $C!SSC0 forthe purpose of processin the

docu-ents of crew -e-bers of MFW$rincess DoaL& 8he initial plan of the[s]hip!owner was to use the vessel inthe overseas trade, particularly theast sian "rowth rea& 8hereafter,the contract of [private respondent]was processed before the $0 onSepte-ber 2B, 1994&cralaw

O0S alleed further that theshipowner chaned its plans on theuse of the vessel& +nstead of usin it foroverseas trade, it decided to use it inthe coastwise trade, thus, thecrew-e-bers hired never left the$hilippines and were -erely used bythe shipowner in the coastwise trade&Considerin that the MF W$rincess DoaLwas a forein reistered vessel andcould not be used in the coastwisetrade, the shipowner converted thevessel to $hilippine reistry onSepte-ber 2*, 1994 by way ofbareboat charterin it out to anotherentity na-ed $hilippine CarrierShippin


54/86

rave abuse of discretion in rulin infavor of private respondent chanrobles virtual law library

8he CourtLs #ulin

Ehile petitioner is procedurally correct,the case should nonetheless bedecided on the -erits in favor ofprivate respondent&cralaw

$rocedural +ssue: Co-pliance with the#ules of Court

$etitioner puts at issue the properinterpretation of Section of #ule 46of the #ules of Court& [11] Speci7cally,was petitioner reGuired to attach acerti7ed true copy of the


55/86

certain which is the subject -atter ofthe contract and .c/ cause of theobliation& [2] ?ased on the perfectedcontract, $rivate #espondent "uerreroco-plied with his obliationsthereunder and rendered his serviceson board the vessel& Contrary topetitionerLs contention, the contracthad an object, which was the renditionof service by private respondent onboard the vessel& 8he non!deploy-entof the ship overseas did not a>ect thevalidity of the perfected e-ploy-entcontract& fter all, the decision to usethe vessel for coastwise shippin was-ade by petitioner only and did notbear the written confor-ity of privaterespondent& contract cannot benovated by the will of only one party&[24] 8he clai- of petitioner that itprocessed the contract of privaterespondent with the $0 only after hehad started wor=in is also without-erit& $etitioner cannot use its own-isfeasance to defeat his clai-&cralaw

$etitioner, as -annin aent, is jointlyand severally liable with its principal,[2@] $C!SSC0, for privaterespondentLs clai-& 8his conclusion isin accordance with Section 1 of #ule ++of the $0 #ules and #eulations&[26] Joint and solidary liability is -eantto assure arieved wor=ers ofi--ediate and su5cient pay-ent ofwhat is due the-& [23] 8he fact that

petitioner and its principal havealready ter-inated their aencyaree-ent does not relieve the for-erof its liability& 8he reason for this rulinwas iven by this Court in Catan%ational


56/86

Sycip, Salaar, Dernande U "at-aitan forpetitioner&

?enedicto $alacol for (e


57/86

+n its Consolidated #eply ;+


58/86

ERE*)RE, the Guestioned decision ofrespondent %ational


59/86

$etitioners alleed that in 19*1, they were hiredas carpenters by (ynasty Steel Eor=s owned byrespondent (y& (ynasty was enaed in thebusiness of -a=in steel fra-es, windows, doorsand other construction wor=s& +t was contractedby Sol-ac ar=etin to construct its buildin in?alintawa=, Caloocan City&

0n %ove-ber 2@, 19*2, petitioners went to the

Social Security Syste- .SSS/ o5ce to inGuireabout their bene7ts under the syste-& 8hey wereinfor-ed that they were not reported ase-ployees either by (ynasty or by respondent(y& $etitioners 7led a co-plaint aainst (ynastyand respondent (y for violation of SSS laws andreulations&

0n (ece-ber 2B, 19*2, petitioners wereprohibited fro- enterin the wor= site at theSol-ac co-pound& 8he security uard showedthe- an orderMnotice dated (ece-ber 1*, 19*2issued by respondent (y instructin hi- not to

allow petitioners to enter the pre-ises as theywere already dis-issed fro- wor=& $etitionerssouht the help of $MCpl& leander


60/86

perfor-ance of the wor= ecept as to the resultsthereofA and .2/ has substantial capital orinvest-ent in the for- of tools, eGuip-ent,-achineries, wor= pre-ises, and other -aterialswhich are necessary in the conduct of hisbusiness&v[1@]#espondent -urao did notsatisfy both reGuire-ents& +t appears, instead,that respondent -urao was also an e-ployee ofrespondent (y who was tas=ed to screen and tosupervise the wor=ers at respondent (ysconstruction project at Sol-ac& +t is clear fro- theforeoin that petitioners were e-ployees ofrespondent (y&

Ee reject respondent -uraos sub-ission thatpetitioners were project e-ployees& 8he principaltest for deter-inin whether an e-ployee is aproject e-ployee or a reular e-ployee iswhether or not the project e-ployee wasassined to carry out a speci7c project orunderta=in, the duration and scope of whichwere speci7ed at the ti-e the e-ployee was

enaed for that project&

vi

[16]+n the case at bar,it does not appear that respondent (y infor-edpetitioners at the ti-e of their enae-ent aboutthe speci7c project or underta=in for which theywere hired, as well as the duration and scope ofsuch project&vii[13]?esides, the records showthat petitioners, as carpenters, were perfor-inactivities necessary or desirable in respondent(ys business of -a=in steel fra-es, windows,doors and other construction wor=s& $etitionersshould therefore be considered as reulare-ployees under rticle 2*B of the


61/86

IN


62/86

-ilitary bases aree-ent& 8hey ad-itted thatC;8+ had areed with the driversL union, throuhits $resident duardo Castillo who clai-ed tohave had blan=et authority to neotiate with C;8+in behalf of union -e-bers, to rant its taidriver!e-ployees separation pay eGuivalent to$@BB&BB for every year of service&

8he labor arbiter, 7ndin the individual

co-plainants to be reular wor=ers of C;8+,ordered the latter to pay the- $1,2BB&BB forevery year of service Ofor hu-anitarianconsideration,O settin aside the earlieraree-ent between C;8+ and the driversL unionof $@BB&BB for every year of service& 8he laborarbiter rejected the alleation of C;8+ that it wasforced to close business due to Oreat 7nanciallosses and lost business opportunityO since, at theti-e it ceased operations, C;8+ was pro7tablyearnin and the cessation of its business was dueto the unti-ely closure of Clar= ir ?ase& +n notawardin separation pay in accordance with the

this Court enjoinin eecution of the assailed#esolutions&

+ssues

8he petitioners raise the followin issues beforethis Court for resolution:

OI& Ehether or not public respondent%


63/86


64/86

the tai drivers alleedly represented by %0E,are the-selves parties in this case&i[16]

8hird +ssue: /iability of ?etitioner7Corporations and Their 'espective 35cers

8he resolution of this issue involves anotherfactual 7ndin that %auiat nterprises actually-anaed, supervised and controlled e-ploy-ent

ter-s of the tai drivers, -a=in it their indirecte-ployer& s adverted to earlier, factual 7ndinsof Guasi!judicial bodies are bindin upon the courtin the absence of a showin of rave abuse ofdiscretion&

'nfortunately, the %


65/86

Eitness

Ehat + =now is that he is a concessionaire&

tty& Suare

?ut do you also =now that Serio ;& %auiat is the

$resident of Clar= ;ield 8ai, +ncorporated

Eitness

Hes& sir&

tty& Suare

Dow about r& ntolin %auiat what is his role inthe tai services, the operation of the Clar= ;ield

8ai, +ncorporated

Eitness

De is the vice president&Oli[2*]

nd, althouh the witness insisted that %auiatnterprises was his e-ployer, he could not denythat he received his salary fro- the o5ce of C;8+inside the base&lii[29]

nother driver!clai-ant ad-itted, upon theproddin of counsel for the corporations, that%auiat nterprises was in the tradin business

while C;8+ was in tai services&liii

[B]

+n addition, the Constitutionliv[1]of C;8+!;S8ai (rivers ssociation which, ad-ittedly, wasthe union of individual respondents while stillwor=in at Clar= ir ?ase, states that -e-bersthereof are the e-ployees of C;8+ and O.f/orcollective barainin purposes, the de7nitee-ployer is the Clar= ;ield 8ai +nc&O

;ro- the foreoin, the ineludible conclusion isthat C;8+ was the actual and direct e-ployer ofindividual respondents, and that %auiat

nterprises was neither their indirect e-ployernor labor!only contractor& +t was not involved atall in the tai business&

CFTI president solidarily liable

$etitioner!corporations would li=ewise want toavoid the solidary liability of their o5cers& 8obolster their position, Serio ;& %auiat andntolin 8& %auiat speci7cally aver that they weredenied due process since they were not parties tothe co-plaint below&lv[2]+n the broader interestof justice, we, however, hold that Serio ;&

%auiat, in his capacity as president of C;8+,cannot be eonerated fro- joint and severalliability in the pay-ent of separation pay toindividual respondents&

A.C. 'ansom /abor nion7CC/ vs. +/'Clvi[]isthe case in point& &C& #anso- Corporation was afa-ily corporation, the stoc=holders of whichwere -e-bers of the Dernande fa-ily& +n 193,it 7led an application for clearance to close orcease operations, which was duly ranted by the

inistry of


66/86

#%S0, the $resident appears to be theanaer&O .'nderscorin supplied&/

Serio ;& %auiat, ad-ittedly, was the presidentof C;8+ who actively -anaed the business& 8hus,applyin the rulin inA. C. 'ansom, he fallswithin the -eanin of an Oe-ployerO asconte-plated by the airs of a close

corporation, the stoc=holders shall beheld to strict 7duciary duties to eachother and a-on the-selves& Saidstoc=holders shall be personally liable forcorporate torts unless the corporationhas obtained reasonably adeGuateliability insurance&O .underscorinsupplied/

%othin in the records show whether C;8+obtained Oreasonably adeGuate liabilityinsuranceAO thus, what re-ains is to deter-inewhether there was corporate tort&

0ur jurisprudence is wantin as to the de7nitescope of Ocorporate tort&O ssentially, OtortOconsists in the violation of a riht iven or theo-ission of a duty i-posed by law& lviii[@]Si-plystated, tort is a breach of a leal duty& li[6]rticle 2* of the A> 'ealty


67/86

ERE*)RE,the foreoin pre-isesconsidered, the petition is $#8


68/86

liable for da-aes that -ay besu>ered by the innocent party, inaddition to attorneyLs fee and otherepenses if and when the sa-e isventilated in the courts of justice&

$ursuant to the above!Guoted contract,Stevedores hired private respondents toconstitute its labor force&

0n uust 2*,1934, SD+$S+( infor-edS8F(0#S that three ./ -onths afterSepte-ber 1, 1934, or e>ective as of the close ofbusiness on %ove-ber B, followin, theaforestated contract would be ter-inatedbecause of 7nancial reverses& SD+$S+(, however,proferred its readiness to absorb the operatinpersonnel of S8F(0#S fro- the lowest ran=of stevedores up to the ran= of fore-an whodesire to wor= under its e-ploy on a vessel tovessel basis, as it would thereafter underta=e thestevedorin wor= independently b!, itself& 8hus,

SD+$!S+( reGuested S8F(0#S to sub-it aroster of its operatin personnel as aforestatedwho desires to wor= for the for-er& 5

8he business relations between SD+$S+( andS8F(0#S was 7nally ter-inated on%ove-ber B,1934, and as a result thereof,several stevedores and o5ce personnel foundthe-selves out of job& Since the dis-issede-ployees, private respondents herein a-onthe-, received no separation bene7ts, saidrespondents 7led their co-plaint aainstSD+$S+( and S8F(0#S so-eti-e in ;ebruary

193@ for separation pay with the inistry of


69/86

force& +f in the course of private respondentsLwor=, SD+$S+( occasionally issued instructions tothe-, that alone does not in the least detractfro- the fact that only S8F(0#S is thee-ployer of private respondents, for in lealconte-plation, such instruction carry no -oreweiht than -ere reGuests, the privity of contractbein between SD+$S+( and S8F(0#S, notbetween the for-er and the private respondents&Corollarily, such ivin of instruction inevitablysprin fro- SD+$S+(Ls riht predicated on theOContract for ServicesO entered into by it withS8F(0#S&

8here are other considerations that -ilitateaainst a 7ndin of e-ployer! e-ployeerelationship between SD+$S+( and privaterespondents& 8o start with, the contract betweenthe for-er and S8F(0#S had already epiredor ter-inated in accordance with the lastpararaph thereof, as earlier Guoted& +ndeed,after the epiration of said contract, SD+$S+(

does the stevedorin wor= by itself and in facthad o>ered to absorb the operatin personnel ofS8F(0#S fro- the lowest ran= of stevedoresup to the tan= of fore-an who desire to wor=under its e-ploy on a vessel to vessel basis, butfor one reason or another, private respondentsrejected said o>er, althouh so-e of thestevedores who found the-selves out of job byreason of the ter-ination of said contract, hadaccepted the o>er and were thereupon hired bySD+$S+(& +n other words, to now hold privaterespondents as the e-ployees of SD+$S+( andtherefore entitled to labor bene7ts as such, wouldnot only be unfair to the latter, but would li=ewiseviolate its eclusive preroative to deter-inewhether it should enter into an e-ploy-entcontract or not&

s succinctly held in llied ;ree Eor=ersL 'nion v&Co-pania ariti-a, 19 SC# 2@*, 233:


70/86

ter-ination of its contract for services withS8F(0#S&

ED#;0#, the petition is hereby ranted& 8heGuestioned decision, resolution and order arehereby set aside in so far as they hold petitionerliable to herein private respondents for the-oney clai-s therein stated& 8he te-poraryrestrainin, order heretofore issued is hereby

-ade per-anent& %o costs&

S0 0#(#(&

[G.R. No. 1159!#. @anuar !9, 199>$%(I 0&+)M0+I)N (EN+ER, IN(.,petitioner,vs. N0+I)N0L L0')R REL0+I)NS()MMISSI)N an- E(+)R S0N+ELI(ES,respondents.

( C + S + 0 %

$'%0,&:

8his is a special civil action for certiorari under#ule $! of the #evised #ules of Court for theannul-ent of the (ecision of the %ational


71/86

apply only to wor= done by our e-ployees durinthe 7rst eiht .*/ hours on any wor= day&

;or wor= rendered by the assined personnel inecess of the reular wor= period areed upon,the C


72/86

(anilo Calaua, the assistant vice!president and-anaer of +nternational 0perations of $ri-eanpower is -ost eplicit& De testi7ed on July 22,1992 as follows:

r& Santelices was assined initially to 8ower 2A.p& 8S%&/ then he was assined to 8ower +%Ibid( because there was wor= to be done in

8ower + that necessitated his .co-plainants/

transfer there .p& @ Ibid( althouh the wor= he.co-plainant/ was perfor-in in 8ower ++ was stilleistin %supra( and 8ower ++ is still in proress%supra( -eanin his oriinal assin-ent is stillon!oin up to the present .p& 6 Ibid(.

8he foreoin testi-ony epressly and clearlyad-itted that 4th conversion project, -oreparticularly 8ower ++ to which co-plainant wasoriinally assined is still an on!oin project, andnot yet co-pleted as posited by respondents&

8here was therefore no reason for co-plainantsdis-issal on arch "!, 1991 on the pretended

round which is co-pletion of the project&lviii[1@]

Ee 7nd no valid reason to disturb publicrespondents 7ndins& %o less than the assistantvice!president and -anaer for +nternational0perations of $ri-e testi7ed that the project forwhich private respondent was hired was stilleistin at the ti-e of his dis-issal& +t is settledthat factual 7ndins of Guasi!judicial aencies li=ethe


73/86

responsible for any clai- -ade by thee-ployees&lii[19]

0n the other hand, in labor!only contractin, ane-ployer!e-ployee relationship is created by lawbetween the principal e-ployer and thee-ployees of the labor!only contractor& +n thiscase, the labor!only contractor is considered-erely an aent of the principal e-ployer& 8he

principal e-ployer is responsible to thee-ployees of the labor!only contractor as if suche-ployees had been directly e-ployed by theprincipal e-ployer& 8he principal e-ployertherefore beco-es solidarily liable with the labor!only contractor for a the rihtful clai-s of thee-ployees&liii[2B]

8hus, in leiti-ate job contractin, the principale-ployer is considered only an indirecte-ployer,liv[21]while in labor!only contractin,the principal e-ployer is considered the directe-ployer of the e-ployees&lv[22]

Considerin the ter-s of the ternal JobContract eecuted by $ri-e and $C+?, it cannotbe doubted that $ri-e is a labor!only contractor&'nder the contract, $ri-e -erely acted as aplace-ent aency providin -anpower to thepetitioner throuh $C+?& 8he service rendered by$ri-e in favor of the petitioner was not theperfor-ance of a speci7c job, but the supply ofGuali7ed personnel to wor= as data encoders andco-puter attendants in connection with thepetitioners project&

#ule F+++ ?oo= +++ of the 0-nibus +-ple-entin#ules and #eulations of the


74/86

the parties to 7le their position paperespondents co-plied, but not the petitionersdespite several warnins and ti-e etensions&

8he inaction was construed as a waiver bypetitioners of their riht to present evidence&2[2]

8he


75/86

Section3& #eGuisites for $erfection of ppeal& .a/8he appeal shall be 7led within the rele-entaryperiod as provided in Section 1 of this #uleA shallbe under oath with proof of pay-ent of thereGuired appeal fee and the postin of a cashsurety bond as provided in Section @ of this #ule.which provides how -uch and where the appealfee is to be paid/A shall be acco-panied by a-e-orandu- of appeal which shall state therounds relied upon and the aru-ents insupport thereofA the relief prayed forA and astate-ent of the date when the appellantreceived the appealed decision, order or awardand proof of service on the other party of suchappeal&

-ere notice of appeal without co-plyin withthe other reGuisite aforestated shall not stop therunnin of the period for perfectin an appeal&

Section6& %o tension of $eriod& %o -otion orreGuest for etension of the period within whichto perfect an appeal shall be allowed&

Ee have consistently ruled that pay-ent of theappeal bond is a jurisdictional reGuisite for theperfection of an appeal to the %


76/86

was not seasonably -ade by said counsel andsuch procedural lapse is bindin on petitioners&

IN


77/86

#espondents #o-an and 0rain appealed thedecision to the %


78/86

'nder these conditions, the-andate to reinstate theco-plainants should, therefore, beaddressed to the respondent #$$+and not to the respondent CS+, aOlabor onlyO contractor, nor to the'C;+ which had ceased to be thee-ployer of the co-plainantsbecause of the sale of its business&.'ollo, pp& 9!4B/&

8he %


79/86

contrary notwithstandin, everye-ployer or indirect e-ployer shallbe held responsible with hiscontractor or subcontractor for anyviolation of any provision of thisCode& ;or purposes of deter-ininthe etent of their civil liabilityunder this Chapter, they shall beconsidered as direct e-ployers&

8he i-port 0f the foreoin provisions wasenunciated in the case of ?hilippine =an* ofCommunications v. +ational /abor 'elationsCommission, 146 SC# 43 .19*6/:

'nder the eneral rule set out inthe 7rst and second pararaphs ofrticle 1B6, an e-ployer whoenterLs into a contract with acontractor for the perfor-ance ofwor= for the e-ployer, does notthereby create an e-ployer!

e-ployee relationship betweenhi-self and the e-ployees of thecontractor& 8hus, the e-ployees ofthe contractor re-ain thecontractorLs e-ployees and hisalone& %onetheless, when acontractor fails to pay the waes ofhis e-ployees in accordance withthe ect holdsboththe e-ployer and the OlaboronlyO contractor responsible to thelatterLs e-ployees for the -ore

e>ective safeuardin of thee-ployeesL rihts under the


80/86

8here is no e-ployer!e-ployee relationshipbetween 'nion Carbide and the respondent

janitors& 8he respondents the-selves ad-ittedthat they were selected and hired by CS+ andwere assined to 'nion Carbide& CS+ li=ewiseac=nowleded that the two janitors were itse-ployees& 8he janitors drew their salaries fro-CS+ and not fro- 'nion Carbide& CS+ eercisedcontrol over these janitors throuh #ichard?arroa, also a CS+ e-ployee, who ave ordersand instructions to CS+ janitors assined to the%a-ayan plant& oreover, CS+ had the power toassin its janitors to various clients and to pullout, as it had done in a nu-ber of occasions, anyof its janitors wor=in at 'nion Carbide&

s to whether CS+ is enaed in labor!onlycontractin or in job contractin, applyin thetest prescribed by the


81/86

an- '&ILING (0RE ()R%)R0+I)N,respondents&

'./. Salcedo M Improso /a 35ce for petitioners.

=eng;on, Darnaga, +arciso, Cudala, ?ecson,=eng;on M imene; for =ldg. Care Corp.

=autista, ?icaso, =uyco, Tan M Fider for

respondent F:=TC.

'ELL)SILL),J.:

#espondents are sued by two e-ployees of?uildin Care Corporation, which provides

janitorial and other speci7c services to various7r-s, to co-pel ;ar ?ast ?an= and 8rustCo-pany to reconie the- as its reulare-ployees and be paid the sa-e waes which its

e-ployees receive&

?uildin Care Corporation .?CC, for brevity/, inthe proceedins below, established that it hadsubstantial capitaliation of $1 illion or astoc=holders eGuity of $1&@ illion& 8hus the


82/86

rbiter as well as the %


83/86

for-er case was for illeal dis-issalA this case, onthe other hand, is for conversion of e-ploy-entstatus so that petitioners can receive the sa-esalary bein iven to reular e-ployees of;?8C& ?ut, as herein deter-ined, petitioners arenot reular e-ployees of ;?8C but of ?CC& tany rate, the 7ndin that ?CC in a Guali7edindependent contractor precludes us fro-applyin the ?hilippine =an* of Communicationsdoctrine to the instant petition&

8he deter-ination of e-ployer!e-ployeerelationship involves factual 7ndins& !1bsentany rave abuse of discretion, and we 7nd nonein the case before us, we are bound by the7ndins of the


84/86

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

i

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

i

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

i

i

ii

iii


85/86

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

i

l

li

lii

liii

liv

lv

lvi

lvii

lviii

li

l

li

lii

liii

liv

lv

lvi

lvii

lviii

li

l

li

lii

liii

liv

lv

lvi


86/86

lvii

lviii

li

l

li

lii

liii

liv

lv

lvi

lvii

lviii

li

l

li

lii

liii

liv

lv

lvi

lvii

labor standards full text

Documents